Yeah, so? Are you under the impression that SCREAMING IS GIONG TO make your babble actually relevant or helpful to your position?
Back in the lab Schweitzer and her technicians demineralized the dinosaur skeleton fragments and low and behold the 68 MILLION year old skeleton dissolved and TRANSPARENT vessels were left behind. It was soooo SHOCKING that they did it 17 times because they couldn't believe it.
YES, it IS UNUSUAL for SOFT MATERIAL TO be FOUND in FOSSILS (can we stop randomly screaming now?). But again, how is this supposed to help your case?
There is NO way in the world that soft tissue would be in bones that are 68 MILLION YEARS old!
ROFL! Why, because you say so? Feel free to prove your empty assertion. We'll wait. It's quite uncommon, yes, but hardly impossible under the right conditions.
Of course you are free to believe that they are 68 MILLION YEARS old - even though, again this hypothesis denies reality and turns the laws of science on their head.
No it doesn't. Come back when you have a clue, and actually know enough science to make statements that are grounded in the real "laws of science", and not just your creationist cartoon-version of them.
It's no wonder that the U.S. is trailing other countries in science and math in the education arena ...
...because the creationists keep trying to "dumb down" science like the way you're doing now, *and* spread lies about it, to the point where the general public and students are so confused by the propaganda that they don't know what to believe. Good work, you guys...
nonsense like this 68 MILLION years old SOFT TISSUE is utter nonsense
Nope. But you obviously want to swallow the creationist lies about how it "must" be impossible because that would allegedly "disprove" those fields of science you personally don't want to believe. What *arrogance*...
and THAT is what you base your premises on - evolution and outcome based science to fit your ridiculous world view - to hell with reality and I add common sense.
Actually, that *perfectly* describes what you're doing right here! You pick and choose what you want to accept, based entirely on just what you think you can use to *support* your pre-existing beliefs, and what you have to reject for the same reason.
Just look at yourself -- you uncritically accept claims (from creationists, note) that "science" has "proven" that soft tissue cannot possibly persist for several million years, while rejecting scientific findings that yes, it can. Do you base your rejection of one conclusion and your acceptance of the other on the actual research and evidence. No, you aren't even *familiar* with the actual research, nor do you care. Instead, you pick-and-choose based ONLY on which one allows you to have a cheap excuse to ridicule and reject *other* findings you don't want to have to deal with or think about.
This is exactly what you ridiculously accuse me of: "outcome based science to fit your ridiculous world view". It's utterly pathetic.
Project much?
FRiend, you are wasting your time.
These people regularly come onto these threads and trash anything that doesn’t fit their literal interpretation of the Bible. Its sort of like the old Catholic bashing threads Jim finally banned. Sorry to say, but it is a total waste of your time and effort.